Quote:Krishna_Susarla, as I said before, I subscribe to the belief as stated in the Rig Veda that "The Truth is One but the Sages call it by Many Names."

No doubt the Lord has many names. As I have pointed out, however, this statement has been misused by the new-age Hindu crowd to suggest that every Vedic deity is the same as the Supreme Brahman, which is incorrect.

It does not follow that because the Lord is one, and has many names, that every deity mentioned in the Vedas is that same Supreme Lord.

Furthermore, the new-age Hindu crowd uses this sentiment to suggest that there is no absolute standard of morality. Since truth is one but has many names, they argue, it is ok for some people to eat meat without restriction, while for others it is ok to be vegetarian.

This is without a doubt, an even more egregious example of wishy-washy, sentimental reasoning. Truth having many names has nothing to do with moral relativism.

Quote:

It is one thing to accept this belief that there are many different paths to the truth. However, to behave as if Hinduism has no rules, recommendations, or guidelines and is just "whatever you want it to be" is going too far.

I have often stated this, as you will recall.

Unfortunately, the "Hinduism" that people like you market for the masses is done up to look this way. "Ours is an enlightened religion," they say, "because we have no do's or don'ts unlike *your* religion." These new-age Hindus use such sentiments to assuage their ailing inferiority complex vis-a-vis Christianity and other semitic religions.

Now you are seeing the real result of your politically-correct "Hinduism" campaign. Since you yourself are not loyal to the scripture (you often defend your disagreement with them as "my interpretation," even though the truth is you don't know Sanskrit and have no qualification to interpret in the first place), how do you expect others to be? There is no absolute standard of rules or regulations outside the scripture. And if you expect others to follow a standard that is described in the scriptures, those who refuse will simply take a page from YOUR book and say, "well I don't know any Sanskrit, but nevertheless my 'interpretation' of this clear-cut prohibition against meat-eating is that it is ok for me to eat meat."

This is yet another example of how intellectual mediocrity and scholastic dishonesty simply breed more of the same.

I have stated this in the past also. It was you, as I recall, who often brought up the "but that was in *those* times, let's talk about today" argument.

Either it's eternal, or it is not. Make up your mind.

Quote: Hinduism tends not to have explicit DO's and DONT's (i.e. thou shalt not, thou must...) but Hinduism has long lists of recommendations and explanations of consequences if such recommendations are not followed.

This is just semantics. What is the difference between a "recommendation with a consequence" versus a rule? If it makes you feel better about your religion that you don't have a "Ten Commandments" akin to the Judeo-Christian tradition, so be it. The truth remains, however, that there are explicit regulations described in various shaastras, and the expectation of our progenitors is that humans will follow them.

Of course, none of that changes the fact that you have the freedom to NOT follow them. That there are rules in shaastra does not change the fact that you have a choice whether or not to follow them. And of course, there are consequences to every action - the rules are a must to advance advance spiritually. Without them, there is no hope of liberation. I have already quoted Bhagavad-giitaa to this effect.

Vedic monarchs in the past were required to rule according to some standard. I very much doubt that they told their subjects, "these are just recommendations... you can follow or not follow." In order to create a society that was favorable for spiritual advancement, certain rules were no doubt enforced, while others were probably followed out of a natural, cultural conditioning. For example, there is no explicit rule that I am aware of that men and women should not hold hands and kiss in public. But people of Vedic culture were quite civilized, and they did not need to be told such things because they knew that such acts would agitate the senses of others. Of course, today's "Hindu" community takes a more "enlightened" approach - they see such a culture as "restrictive" and curtailing their "freedoms." They know this because after they go on their first college dates, they can look back on their more restrictive culture and realize how backward and uninformed it was. After all, the good feeling their hormones give them confirms this.

Quote:

Prasadam at mandirs does not contain meat for a valid reason: meat cannot be offered to God. If meat cannot be offered to God and at the same time Krishna says to offer food to God, why in the world would we eat meat or offer it to him?

Meat can be offered to Goddess Kali. There are some Vedic sacrifices in which it is acceptable to sacrifice an animal. However, this point is moot. We aren't having this discussion because some Hindus desperately want to perform an elaborate Vedic sacrifice in which an animal is to be sacrificed. We are having it to address the syndrome of a "Hindu" walking into McDonald's and ordering a Big Mac, all the while claiming he is "Hindu" and is doing nothing wrong.

Quote: I don't know how karma plays out (only God knows) so a person can probably do a lot of great things but still eat meat and grow spiritually at the same time.

No, now you see? Here you go again. You admit you don't know how it works, yet you go on to speculate that one can eat meat and "grow spiritually at the same time." This is sentiment. The explicit consequences of meat-eating have already been quoted. There is no "grow spiritually at the same time" at all. You might as well swallow this now; the mere fact that you have friends who seem "religious" and yet eat meat does not change this.

Quote:

The meat eating won't disqualify you from "Moksha" but as long as you eat meat, it will probably take much longer to get there.

Quote: Anyway, for all the anti-vegetarians out there, you don't even need scriptures to tell you not to eat meat. It's common sense actually based on scientific, ethical, and nutritional reasons. Namaste. ~Shaivite~

It ought to be a source of shame for most Hindus, that in America today, there are atheists who abstain from meat for purely ethical reasons. Yet there are "religious Hindus" who eat meat and see nothing wrong with it.

Is there not a variety of dharmas among sentient beings? No-one disputes the propriety of a tiger killing and eating meat -- This is its dharma. Likewise, do the scriptures condemn a Kshatriya for taking human life in a just war?

In some places life as a vegetarian is impossible. I am thinking, for example, of one incarnated as an Innuit/Eskimo. In a land where the tallest plant is <10 cm tall -- and these covered with snow most of the year. Where >5,000 calories per day are needed to sustain life -- impossible without resorting to meat eating -- it seems reasonable that Innuit-dharma would support meat-eating.

In the West, it seems there has been a "mixing of castes." Is it possible that some are born to live on the flesh of others?

Quote:Is there not a variety of dharmas among sentient beings? No-one disputes the propriety of a tiger killing and eating meat -- This is its dharma.

Precisely. But humans are not animals. And humans have their dharma, which is to subsist on milk, fruits, vegetables, grains, etc.

It is true that any human can choose to behave like an animal and eat meat. But then, do not be surprised at the consequences - hypercholesterolemia, hypertension, coronary artery disease, colon cancer <--- all have increased incidence in meat eaters versus vegetarians. And what to speak of the consequences in one's next life - having a more degraded human birth, or even worse, of having an animal's body.

An intelligent person, seeing the inequities of life, will naturally wonder why some people are born into suffering while others are more well off. The answer is karma - at any given time we enjoy or suffer according to our past deeds. Those of us who enjoy now will suffer later and vice versa. We do not want to live like this, but it is nature's law. If we are truly intelligent, we will instead seek liberation so that we can break out of this cycle of karma.

Believing or not believing in this will not change the fact that it goes on. One can believe that he will not be burned by placing his hand in fire, but he will get burned just the same.

Quote: Likewise, do the scriptures condemn a Kshatriya for taking human life in a just war?

They do not "condemn" such a kshatriya, but it is very clear such duties have karmic consequences unless they are properly dovetailed in the service of the Lord. This is the essence of Bhagavad-giitaa.

Quote:

In some places life as a vegetarian is impossible. I am thinking, for example, of one incarnated as an Innuit/Eskimo. In a land where the tallest plant is <10 cm tall -- and these covered with snow most of the year. Where >5,000 calories per day are needed to sustain life -- impossible without resorting to meat eating -- it seems reasonable that Innuit-dharma would support meat-eating.

I know of no shaastra which describes "Innuit-dharma."

People make bad choices and live with the consequences, like being in a land in which one must survive off of the flesh of others. To get such a birth is certainly the result of bad karma, because such people are forced to degrade themselves further. You can argue that this is unfair, but then what of the wellbeing of the fish and other animal species which Innuit hunters must prey upon? Do they not have a right to live?

Quote:

In the West, it seems there has been a "mixing of castes." Is it possible that some are born to live on the flesh of others?

No. There is no scientific evidence that human life, even humans in the West were meant to be carnivorous. It's mostly an excuse which Hindus (read: Hindus in the West, not even Americans) make in order to justify their new, Western, "enlightened" lifestyle. The logic of it is, "it makes me feel good, so it must be ok." But, when they see suffering in the world, they can't imagine what innocent people have done to deserve the tragic situations they find themselves in. And while they are scratching their heads in wonder at this, these same "Hindus" go on feasting on dead animals, and in this way create the bodies they will inhabit in their next lives, suffering and all.